CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR.versusN. N. SARDESAI & ORS.

648                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   6 S.C.R. 648                   [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A                     CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR.
                                          v.
                            N. N. SARDESAI & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 5152 of 2017)
B                                  JULY 20, 2018
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
             Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 33-C(2) – Overtime wages
      – Claim for – Applications by employees claiming overtime wages
      for work claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their
C
      duties – Dismissed by the labour court – However, allowed by the
      High Court – Interference with – Held: Not called for since the
      employees (total 17) are now no longer in service and have either
      retired from the service or died; the amount involved and awarded
      to the employees is not very sizable; it relates to the period from
D     1986-1990; the amount was already paid long back to the employees
      pursuant to the impugned order; and it relates to the overtime work
      admittedly done by the employees while on duty.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5152
      of 2017.
E           From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2011 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 534 of 1997.
             Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. Madhu Sweta, Rohit Jain, Ms. Abha
      R. Sharma, Vinay Navare, Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Ms. Deeplaxmi
      Matwankar, Ms. Gwen, R. Balasubramanium, Sachin Sharma, Advs.
F     for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against
      the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 534 of 1997 whereby the
G     Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the
      respondents herein and set aside the order dated 16.02.1995 passed by
      the Labour Court and allowed the applications of the respondents.
             2. It may not be necessary to set out the facts in detail except to
      the extent necessary to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.
H
                                       648
CURRENCY NOTE PRESS & ANR. v. N.N. SARDESAI & ORS.                             649
          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       3. The question involved in the appeal is whether the High Court        A
was justified in allowing the respondents’ (employees) writ petition and
was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order passed by the Labour
Court.
       4. The appellants herein are body Corporate wholly owned by
and working under the control of Ministry of Finance, Government of            B
India and had been specifically incorporated to take on the work of
printing currency notes and minting of coins along with 7 other units.
Their printing press is at Nashik(Maharashtra). The respondents (total
17) at all relevant times were the employees of the appellants’ printing
press on different posts such as Junior Accounts Officer/Head
Accountants and Section Officers.                                              C

       5. The respondents claiming to be the workmen of the appellants
filed applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947 before the Labour Court No. 2, Bombay (for short, “the Labour
Court”) against the appellants claiming overtime wages for the work
claimed to have been done by them in discharge of their duties for the         D
period 1986 to 1990. The appellants on facts and law contested these
applications.
      6. By order dated 16.02.1995, the Labour Court dismissed the
applications. The respondents felt aggrieved and filed writ petition before
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the order of the            E
Labour Court.
       7. By impugned order, the Single Judge allowed the respondents’
writ petition and while setting aside the order of the Labour Court allowed
the respondents’ applications and granted them the monetary relief claimed
therein. It is against this order, the appellants (employers) have felt        F
aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
       8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal on more
than one reason mentioned hereinbelow.
                                                                               G
       9. First, all the respondents (total 17) are now no longer in service
and have either retired from the service or died; Second, the amount
involved and awarded to the respondents is not very sizable; Third, it
relates to the period from 1986-1990; Fourth, the amount, pursuant to
the impugned order, was already paid long back to the respondents; and
                                                                               H
650                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     lastly, as mentioned above, it relates to the overtime work admittedly
      done by these respondents (employees) while on duty.
             10. In view of these five factual reasons, we are not inclined to
      interfere in the impugned order of the High Court.
            11. Learned counsel for the appellants (employers), however,
B     argued several legal issues which, according to him, arise in the case.
      These submissions relate to interpretation of certain provisions of the
      Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the Factories Act, 1948.
             12. Keeping in view the five factual reasons set out above which
      admittedly emerge from the record of the case, we are not inclined to
C     examine the legal questions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants
      and consider it proper to leave these questions open for our decision on
      their merits in some other case.
            13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is
      accordingly dismissed.
D

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal dismissed.




E




F




G




H